Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 9 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Abortion

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland. [26375]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I have no plans to extend the Act to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Brown: I understand entirely the answer that my hon. Friend gave to my question, and I am sure that that answer will be welcomed by most hon. Members representing the Province. Why do we continue to legislate differently for the Province than for the rest of the kingdom?

Mr. Moss: The Government did not include Northern Ireland in the Abortion Act because at that time they considered the reform of social law in that very sensitive area to be a proper matter for a devolved administration; that remains the Government's view.

Dr. Hendron: The Minister will recall that, last year, an all-party delegation met the Prime Minister to discuss that question, and we all expressed our absolute and total opposition to any extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister will confirm that the Government will make no effort to extend that Act.

Mr. Moss: I am happy to confirm the answer I gave some moments earlier.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend might like to know that I led that delegation to meet the Prime Minister, and I and other hon. Members are delighted to learn that the policy has not changed. It has the personal support of

the Prime Minister and the unequivocal and unanimous support of hon. Members from all political parties in the House that represent the Province.

Mr. Moss: I am aware of the deputation that the hon. Lady led to the Prime Minister, and I am happy to repeat his assurance that there are no plans to extend that Act to Northern Ireland.

Motorway Emergency Telephones

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the emergency telephone system on motorways is to be replaced; and if he will make a statement. [26376]

Mr. Moss: The chief executive of the Department of the Environment's road service advises me that the existing motorway emergency telephone system is more than 30 years old and is now obsolete. Many of the spare parts needed to maintain it are no longer available. In the interests of safety, it is therefore imperative that a new replacement system be provided.

Mr. Taylor: If the telephone system is 30 years old today, it was 29 years old yesterday. Why has it suddenly become a priority expenditure in the roads programme in Northern Ireland? It has never been in the roads programme before. Why has it replaced important major road schemes in the constituency of Strangford, which has not had a major road scheme for many years? Especially, I name the Comber bypass and the major link road between the Comber road and the Portaferry road in Newtownards, both of which were on the road programme and both of which have been damaged by the sudden inclusion of a new telephone system on the motorways. Is the real reason for the priority that the new telephone system is in some way connected with the provision of cable television in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Moss: In some ways, I regret having to contradict what the hon. Gentleman just said. The telephone system was first assessed by independent consultants back in March 1989, and recommendations in the short term were implemented in 1990 and 1991. It was recommended that the entire system be replaced, and the scheme first appeared in the five-year programme in 1993–94. We had to prioritise the road programme for the next five years, and the Comber bypass has slipped by only one year.

Unemployment

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes have taken place in youth and long-term unemployment in the past 12 months. [26377]

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the percentage change in the level of unemployment in the Province in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [26384]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Over the year to March 1996, youth unemployment in Northern Ireland fell by 6.1 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 9.1 per cent. The headline unemployment total fell by 5.1 per cent., or 4, 580.

Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the prospects for enduring social stability in Northern Ireland are enhanced by that welcome news? Given the historically high levels of long-term unemployment in the Province, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the clear fall in long-term unemployment is welcome, especially as it is nearly twice the overall rate of decline?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is right. Long-term unemployment has fallen by 9.1 per cent. compared with 5.1 per cent. for unemployment overall. We continue to work extensively in the area and are pleased that we are reskilling and retraining that group of people to be competitive in gaining the jobs that we are attracting to the Province.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a significant contribution to the improvement in the unemployment figures which he has just announced comes from tourism in Northern Ireland, which has received a tremendous boost from the more peaceful times of the past two years? Can he think of anything more important to continued prosperity and job creation in Northern Ireland than that visitors should feel secure in coming there? Can there be anything more important than an immediate resumption of the ceasefire?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I endorse everything that he has said. The total number of out-of-country visitors for 1995, reaching 1, 557, 000, constitute a 20 per cent. increase on the number in 1994. The boost to employment that that gives works in exactly the way that my hon. Friend describes. There has never been any excuse for violence and the return to the ceasefire of August 1994, and an improvement on it, is urgently required.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the consternation surrounding the reduction in jobs in the action for community employment projects throughout the Province. In that connection, will he consider the problems of released prisoners and set up some form of job training agency under the auspices of the Training and Employment Agency?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I know my hon. Friend's concern with the unemployment problems in his constituency. He will be glad that, over the year, there has been a reduction of 8.9 per cent. in his constituency. It is important that prisoners should be helped to be reintroduced into self-supporting and lawful life outside prison, and I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State explain why, if there is to be support for youths in long-term unemployment, £12 million has been taken from the ACE budget? Is it to be restored?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: We must consider the best and most effective way in which our public expenditure can be deployed. The first and foremost avenue for that should be to encourage private sector investment, which has been so successful in the past year or so. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the ACE programme has been reduced—I did not enjoy doing that, but we did it for that purpose. The community work programme comprises three pilot schemes that provide improved conditions and a more attractive scheme in comparison with ACE. We are looking forward to seeing the results of their evaluation.

Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the fact that the largest employer in the Province is agriculture and the crisis that it faces, what hope can the Secretary of State give to young farmers and young people hoping to come into the family farm? Does the Secretary of State accept that many European Governments, such as those of Germany, France and the Irish Republic, have been playing selfish games with the British beef industry? Is it not about time they were told where and when to get off? Finally, in future negotiations, will the Secretary of State bat for Ulster beef, which is no doubt the best in Europe?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Many people take that view, not least the Dutch. The hon. Gentleman will know that very big importers from Holland have stipulated that all beef from the United Kingdom should come exclusively from Northern Ireland. When the ban was imposed, they took the trouble to visit Northern Ireland to say they would continue in that if their Government allowed them to do so. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the agriculture industry. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Ulster Farmers Union annual general meeting where, although they did not need to do so, farmers stressed the importance of getting the wholly unjustified ban lifted, not just from Northern Ireland but from the United Kingdom. My colleagues and I will certainly press for that with utmost vigour.

Tourism

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further measures are proposed to attract visitors to Northern Ireland from (a) the rest of the United Kingdom, (b) the Republic of Ireland and (c) overseas; and if he will make a statement. [26378]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The Northern Ireland tourist board continues to promote Northern Ireland vigorously in all identified markets. Through co-operative campaigns with the relevant tourist authorities, it will strive to build on the considerable growth in visitor arrivals in 1995. Continual priority is being paid to increasing facilities and improving standards.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware that the greatest hindrance to visitors leaving London for Northern Ireland is not the mountains, streams, rivers or seas, but the high prices and profits of British Airways and other principal operators between London and Northern Ireland? Will he make it his business to encourage British Airways and other principal carriers to reduce the prices of air fares between Northern Ireland and London's principal airports


with a view to increasing the number of people—visitors and those living in London and Northern Ireland—who can use those routes? Is he aware that there is great competition over the route between London and Dublin with Ryan Air, which offers a genuinely low fare? Will he encourage other budget airlines to operate routes, provide competition and increase mobility?

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the airlines will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The Government wish to encourage all those involved in promoting tourism to do so in a way that attracts the maximum number of visitors. It is interesting to note that, despite what the hon. Gentleman says, in 1995 there was a 14 per cent. increase on the previous year in the number of visitors from Great Britain. That was most encouraging. My right hon. and learned Friend has already mentioned the overall increase of 20 per cent. It is also interesting to note that there was a 53 per cent. increase in the number of tourists from north America and a 60 per cent. increase in the number of tourists from Australia and New Zealand. All in all, the Northern Ireland tourism industry is doing very well at promoting itself, increasing the number of holiday visitors and creating jobs in the process.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the Northern Ireland tourism industry depends on its ability to offer competitive prices? How would that competitive position be affected by the introduction of a national minimum wage or by the social chapter being signed?

Mr. Ancram: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. One reason why Northern Ireland is doing well, not only in tourism but in general economic terms, is that the employment regulations are favourable to economic growth and activity. Certainly, if we were to sign up for the social chapter that would no longer happen.

Mr. William Ross: We were told earlier that last year roughly as many people came to visit Northern Ireland as actually live there. Although we commend the efforts of those who increase the number of visitors, what is the point of attracting people to Northern Ireland if we do not have good-quality accommodation for them? What steps do the Government and the tourist board intend to take to increase the amount of reasonable-quality accommodation in the main tourist areas, which were almost overcome by the number of visitors last year?

Mr. Ancram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in a sense, we were victims of our own success last year, but I am sure that he will agree that that is the right kind of problem to have. I am delighted that hotel investment is taking place. Both the Stakis and Jurys hotel groups recently announced major hotel investments in Northern Ireland.
It is also worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that, since the beginning of 1995, the Northern Ireland tourist board has agreed, or has been in the process of negotiating, assistance to the hotel industry of £24 million. That investment represents total expenditure of more than £98 million on new and

improved hotels. I hope that the problems caused by last year's success will gradually be met through such encouragement and support.

Terrorism

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest assessment of the capability of the Provisional IRA to mount a terrorist campaign. [26379]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): It is a fact that the Provisional IRA remains a formidably organised terrorist structure with the personnel and the weaponry available to mount a terrorist campaign, as evidenced by recent bomb attacks in London and other activities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week's attempt to blow up Hammersmith bridge is a further chilling reminder of the terrorist capabilities of the Provisional IRA? Does that kind of incident not show that we need to demand not only the decommissioning of weapons but the standing down and dismantling of the terrorist structure? Nothing less will convince the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom of the IRA's real intentions with regard to peace.

Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is quite right: the standing down of the terrorist structure is essential. The Mitchell commission report said:
There must be a commitment and adherence to the fundamental principles of democracy and non-violence. All participants in any future all-party negotiations should confirm their commitment to those principles and honour them".
There can be no place for those who possess stockpiles of Semtex and weapons or who engage in racketeering or in punishment attacks. My hon. Friend is right to say that the confidence of all people depends on adherence to those principles.

Miss Hoey: Does the Minister agree that it would be inconceivable if the Republic of Ireland, which is an independent country, were to face the same terrorist threat as the United Kingdom, with bombs being found now and again—some of which explode and some which do not? The Irish Government would be much more up-front in dealing with those who were perpetuating terrorism. Does the Minister believe that we could learn some lessons from how the Republic of Ireland faced up to terrorism when it was occurring in that country?

Sir John Wheeler: The Republic's security forces, and the Garda Siochana in particular, co-operate very well with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There is an excellent relationship between the two police forces who work closely together. The hon. Lady is right: it is a serious matter. Since 9 February, there have been six terrorist bombings in London alone, apart from the daily evil of punishment attacks in Northern Ireland. It is essential that the Governments continue to explore the best possible ways of extending and improving co-operation between the security forces and the police services in particular.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister confirm that the IRA is still training, making weapons and attacking people by letter and by intimidation? Will he confirm that the police have recently visited many people in our constituencies to ask them to leave their homes and go to places of safety? Will he join me today in condemning the scurrilous attack made yesterday at the forum of the British-Irish interparliamentary body on the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? He was attacked because he denounced the IRA, and he was told by Paddy Harte that his attitude had caused many generations of Irish people to kill each other and to be anti-British. When the hon. Gentleman claimed that Northern Ireland was his country also, he was rebuked by the same Paddy Harte.

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he describes the activities of the Provisional IRA. Unhappily, the targeting, training and other criminal activities continue. It is a regrettable fact that this year, to 21 April, there have been no fewer than 98 so-called punishment attacks on people in Northern Ireland. That is exactly double the number over the same period in 1995, and 61 of the beatings have been attributed to Republican groups. It is essential that that evil ends if there is to be confidence in an ensuing peace process.
I note the hon. Gentleman's comments about the forum in Dublin and I am sorry to hear them.

Ms Mowlam: Labour agrees with the point just made by the Minister about punishment beatings. Unless they end, the trust and confidence needed will not be engendered. Does the Minister share our view that the issue of decommissioning of paramilitary weapons must be addressed at the beginning of the negotiations on 10 June and that the Mitchell report provides the best way to deal with that issue? In addition, does the Minister agree that the proposals advanced by the Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring, are entirely in keeping with the report and provide the most sensible way to proceed if we are to avoid returning to the logjam on that issue when the negotiations start on 10 June?

Sir John Wheeler: The Government's position is based on the principles of the Mitchell report. It lays down a clear route if those engaged in terrorist activities wish to renounce violence and enter the democratic process. As I have said, the six principles in the Mitchell report set out very clearly what they must do, but they have to honour those principles. That will be essential if there is to be progress. I agree with the hon. Lady that the first item on the agenda must be decommissioning.

Deregulation

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to promote further deregulation measures in the Province. [126380]

Sir John Wheeler: I shall do so through the draft Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which the House debated yesterday, and six specific deregulatory amendments will be made to Northern Ireland legislation.

Mr. Steen: As deregulation has not, unfortunately, been a great success in Great Britain—given that 7, 839 statutory instruments have been passed in the past two years and only a few hundred have been repealed, although we have a £1.3 million task force of 43 staff in the Deputy Prime Minister's office, and that only 24 orders have come out of the Select Committee on Deregulation—why does the Minister think that we should impose the same disadvantages that Great Britain has had on Northern Ireland?

Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend took a distinguished part in the debate late last night on the draft Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 which, as the House knows, was passed shortly before midnight. He expressed himself in similar terms during that debate and I shall ensure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in Great Britain are made aware of his interest and concerns. I can assure him that in Northern Ireland we shall proceed with all due dispatch to ensure that our contracting-out and deregulatory arrangements work as efficiently and effectively as they can.

Sir James Molyneaux: As one who is more optimistic than the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), may I make a point to the Minister? Given the success and the ability demonstrated by the district councils in Northern Ireland in promoting in-house tendering, will the Minister make use of last night's Order in Council and enable councils to compete with private suppliers from the private sector?

Sir John Wheeler: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, last night's order will not compel, but will enable councils and other bodies to contract out and to compete for tendering. I hope that they will do so, because the evidence is that millions of pounds have been saved in Northern Ireland—money that can be better used for the services that people want. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's support will be made widely known in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dowd: I am not sure whether the Minister found the contribution by the hon. Member for South Hams in last night's debate quite as positive as he now claims. Still, how does he intend to implement the considerable powers given to him and, more particularly, given to his civil servants under articles 9 and 10 of the order, to ensure that full consultation with all affected by any changes occurs before decisions are taken? Furthermore, how will he ensure that the powers are not abused for purely administrative convenience?

Sir John Wheeler: The powers agreed last night will in part be exercised by senior civil servants under the general policy guidance of Ministers responsible for Northern Ireland Departments. It will be inherent in the process of discharging those powers that those with a necessary and relevant interest in any subject will be properly consulted.

Transport Links

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will institute a review of transport links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. [26381]

Mr. Moss: In view of the continued success of commercial transport operators and the growth in traffic between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, I do not believe that there are any grounds for a review at this time. In any event, shipping and air services between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are a matter for the Department of Transport.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful. Will the Minister, however, confirm that the route from Cairnryan and Stranraer to Larne remains, in the thinking of the Government and of the European Union, one of the principal routes between Great Britain and the island of Ireland? In order to ensure that it does, will he say what guarantees he has obtained so that after rail privatisation the link from the west coast main line to Stranraer will continue to operate a service at least as frequent as, and preferably better than, the current one?

Mr. Moss: I am happy to confirm that the Government consider the sea link between the ports of Stranraer and Cairnryan and Northern Ireland to be vital to the economy of Northern Ireland. The steady increase in freight and passenger traffic, combined with the introduction by operators of improved vessels and infrastructure, point to the viability of these operations.
The privatisation of the rail link is a matter for the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Transport; but I understand that a minimum service requirement for the proposed line has been put out to consultation.

Mr. Beggs: Can the Minister confirm that the A8 Larne to Belfast road is part of a recognised Euro-route? Does he agree that total funding for the roads programme in Northern Ireland has been inadequate for years? Does he recognise that cancelling the proposed dualling extension for the A8 has caused considerable concern? When reviewing proposals for future road development in Northern Ireland, will he give consideration to the increased traffic that will travel the A8 owing to the new P and 0 fast ferry service due to come into operation in June? Will he therefore seek to reinstate the dualling extension in the Northern Ireland's roads programme?

Mr. Moss: I confirm that the A8 is indeed a trans-European network route, and that funds for road improvement are not sufficient to meet the ever-increasing demand. We have repositioned schemes in the programme this year to reflect new priorities—especially the traffic congestion on the west link in Belfast. I am happy to reiterate, however, that the Government's long-term intention remains to dual the A8, in stages spread over the six to 15-year major roads programme. That may be subject to change if traffic volumes on the A8 change significantly. In any case, investment can be considered for minor improvements to ease congestion, eliminate delays and deal with aspects of road safety.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to restructure the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [26382]

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend yesterday published a White Paper detailing proposals to

improve and clarify the accountability and effectiveness of the police service in Northern Ireland. Separately, the fundamental review of policing continues. Conclusions are expected in the summer.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister concede that the report itself states that there are serious differences between the confidence felt in the police by the nationalist and loyalist communities in Northern Ireland? Full restructuring should take place as a matter of urgency, including an examination of recruitment methods and a change in the name of the Northern Ireland police force, which should no longer be known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That will inspire greater confidence in the police among the nationalist community.

Sir John Wheeler: The White Paper was about improving the tripartite structure. Some aspects of the hon. Gentleman's question relate, perhaps, to the fundamental review of policing that will take place in the summer, but there is a strong desire to see recruitment into the Royal Ulster Constabulary reflect the character of the population as a whole, and there is some sign of a welcome improvement. That is the objective of the police authority and chief constable.

Sir John Cope: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's suggestions, having personal knowledge of the RUC, I ask him to be most cautious to do nothing that would damage the morale of the RUC, as that would be unwise and dangerous, particularly while the terrorists are fully active and armed, as they are at present. Does not the maintenance of the rule of law over many years owe much to the bravery, skill and restraint of the RUC?

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that we do not have a ceasefire in Northern Ireland. The provisional IRA remains a serious and formidable threat, and the officers of the RUC are on the front line. We should not forget that. Nor should we forget that every test of public opinion in Northern Ireland shows that the RUC is increasingly seen as an effective police service, responding to the needs of the public, which is what it wishes to do.

Mr. Worthington: We welcome yesterday's White Paper on policing, but does it not fudge on one central issue? Will not the police authority have the independent strength that it needs only when representatives of the local authorities, professions, trade unions and industry are chosen by the bodies themselves, and when it is not a quango selected by the Secretary of State?

Sir John Wheeler: The Government are open minded about the way in which members of the police authority find their places on that body. The appointments method currently employed at least has the virtue that it enables my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to select people from all parts of the community in Northern Ireland and to ensure that the police authority is as fairly balanced and representative as possible. For the future, however, there may be other ways of securing people to the membership of the authority which reflects some of the democratic systems in Northern Ireland, or how they might emerge. It is a matter on which the Government's mind is open.

Electricity Industry

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he intends to take on electricity generation and distribution following the second report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on electricity prices in Northern Ireland, HC 395 of Session 1994–95. [26385]

Mr. Ancram: Following their response to the Select Committee's report, the Government announced a £15 million support package to reduce the increase in Northern Ireland electricity prices in 1996–97 by 3 per cent. The Government remain committed to securing the economic and environmental benefits of energy efficiency.

Mr. Soley: Notwithstanding the fact that the Select Committee represents five different political parties in the House, the unanimous view of everybody on the Committee was that the people of Northern Ireland have had fewer advantages from privatisation than people in the rest of the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That is comparative. The Minister will accept that all the recommendations in the report were carried unanimously and that there is a strong view that not only the individual consumer but business and employment will be greatly affected by the steps that the Government take to improve the effect of privatisation in Northern Ireland, which was not as it was planned to be.

Mr. Ancram: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the advantages that have flowed from privatisation. I sometimes wish that some of his colleagues were as forthcoming in their recognition of the benefits of privatisation. Obviously, the Government wish to see those benefits and advantages increase. There is no evidence that decisions on major economic investment projects have been adversely influenced by higher electricity prices in Northern Ireland, but, in their response to the Select Committee, the Government set out the need, which they achieved this year, to keep any price increase below the rate of inflation.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister must be aware that the high cost of power is imposing a crippling burden on Northern Ireland industry, and is leading some firms to consider relocating elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The problem arises from the botched way in which privatisation was carried out: Northern Ireland was locked into high-cost contracts. Do not alternative energy supplies need to be made available speedily, and the regulator's powers enhanced, so that he can act sooner? Does that not require action, not words, from the Government?

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that steps are currently being taken—not least by Premier Energy Suppliers Ltd.—to develop downstream gas in Greater Belfast. Consultations are being offered between Premier Energy Suppliers and others to establish whether gas supplies can be taken to the north-west as well. Alternative energy sources are, in fact, being considered. The Government have made it clear that they also want to look at renewable resources. They have always taken the view that the greater the variety and choice in energy, the better it will ultimately be for consumers.

Mr. Illsley: Does the Minister accept that, even with a £15 million subsidy this year, the price increase in

Northern Ireland is still 2.6 per cent.? That means that electricity prices in Northern Ireland are still 20 per cent. higher than the United Kingdom average, mainly as a result of contracts for generators which, in some instances, are in place until 2024. Until those contracts are renegotiated, there can be no progress on electricity prices. Should not the Minister take action now to restructure what is indeed a bungled privatisation?

Mr. Ancram: I reject any suggestion that it is a bungled privatisation. The generators' charges are fixed in real terms, and protect consumers against generator costs rising faster than inflation. The contracts prevent generators from increasing their charges throughout the period of those contracts. Higher generators' profits have been achieved through greater efficiency and cost savings, and not at the expense of consumers. Surely the hon. Gentleman welcomes increased efficiency in the industry, which is in the long-term interests of consumers.

Flags

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what occasions (a) the Union flag is flown over RUC stations and (b) the tricolour is flown at the Garda Siochana stations in the Republic. [26386]

Sir John Wheeler: The Union flag is flown over RUC stations on 19 prescribed occasions. I have written to the hon. Member listing those occasions. In addition, the Union flag is flown on any occasion directed by the Chief Constable, the last such occasion being 9 June 1994, at the time of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre.
I understand that the Irish national flag is flown over Gardai stations on certain national days and throughout the year over Gardai headquarters, Dublin. Otherwise, the decision to fly the flag is at the discretion of local commanders.

Mr. Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend received any request for the European Union flag to be flown over those stations?

Sir John Wheeler: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that no such request has been received. Were such a request to be received, I would of course consider it with great care.

A-level Examinations

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the performance of secondary school children in Northern Ireland in the A-level examinations. [26389]

Mr. Ancram: Northern Ireland pupils continue to maintain a high level of performance in A-level examinations, and I offer my congratulations to both pupils and teachers.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister consider that the superb success of Northern Ireland children in GCSEs and A-levels may have been achieved for the same reason as the success in Southend-on-Sea? More than 24 per cent.


of all those children, irrespective of religion, go to grammar schools. Will the Minister bear it in mind that grammar schools give working-class children an opportunity to break through educationally, and will he tell his colleagues and the Labour party that grammar schools achieve a great deal of sound success? We should be proud of what Northern Ireland has achieved.

Mr. Ancram: As the Education Minister for Northern Ireland, I am more than happy to pay tribute to the quality of education produced by grammar schools, which contribute to the high quality of education provided there, but we must recognise that there are other reasons for that. There is a traditionally high regard for academic qualifications—particularly in higher education—in the Province, and I have found that parents place a high value on education. Parental support also plays a great part in producing the results that we are seeing.

Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals HSS Trust

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had concerning the financial position of the Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals HSS trust; and if he will make a statement. [26390]

Mr. Moss: I met the trust chairman and senior officers on 21 February and took the opportunity to discuss the financial position. The trust has experienced problems in recent years regarding in-year pressures, but it is developing a recovery plan and has to date achieved all of its strategy financial obligations.

Mrs. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that the hospitals feel that they are in financial chaos? Is he further aware that those involved believe that they will no longer be able to carry out any casualty treatment and that all elective surgery is likely to be cancelled? Is it not time that the Minister worked with the hospitals to ensure that financial stability is returned? Those involved believe that this is not a temporary phenomenon and that the Government must take some responsibility.

Mr. Moss: I reiterate that I met the trust chairman and officers on 21 February. On 20 February, I announced a major investment programme at the hospital, totalling some £13.5 million. I do not consider that to be ignoring the hospitals' requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26405]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Arnold: During his busy evening, did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to watch television last night, as an interesting broadcast demonstrated conclusively that people get better value for their council tax from Conservative councils? Does he not think that people will get better value by voting Conservative today?

The Prime Minister: They can certainly see that, by voting Labour in the past, they have had to pay high council tax. Southwark, Islington, Wellingborough and probably any Labour authority one can mention has had a significantly higher council tax in the previous year, and a higher tax than a comparable Conservative authority. That is the nature of the Labour beast—vote for it, and then pay for it.

Mr. Blair: What most people recall is that they did vote for the Conservative party and they did pay for it, with 22 tax increases.
However, is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday that the cattle slaughter scheme would be fully operational today? In view of the widespread reports of confusion from all around the country today, can he give a factual account of what is happening?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the information should now be available to people. My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the National Farmers Union with details of the scheme, and information was published in the farming press last week. Guidance on the scheme was distributed on Monday evening to the abattoirs and markets that have been designated to operate it. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear yesterday, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will issue detailed guidance to farmers, and that will be sent out tomorrow. In the meantime, the Intervention Board and MAFF are operating a helpline to provide information to farmers, and that will continue throughout the weekend.

Mr. Blair: Is not the difference between theory and practice the problem here? The scheme is supposed to be operational today, but does not appear to be operational in many parts of the country. In particular, people are saying, first, that there are insufficient collection centres; secondly, that there may be inadequate capacity for incinerating the carcases; and, thirdly, that many farmers appear to be in the dark both about the details of compensation and how it will operate. I know that this is difficult, but can the Prime Minister ask the Agriculture Minister to respond with even greater urgency to the situation, because at the moment the response appears pretty inept?

The Prime Minister: I have already made my own inquiries to ensure that such information as is necessary is distributed and made available to farmers speedily. The scheme is large and will involve the slaughter of 15, 000 to 20, 000 animals a week. The scheme has been finalised and we moved immediately to ensure that farmers had the information they needed. Most of them should have. If some have not, the matter is now being examined and investigated, and I hope that farmers will have the information speedily.

Sir Cranley Onslow: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter about the EC ban on British beef exports which a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends sent yesterday to all the EC ambassadors in London? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to call in those ambassadors to ensure that they report accurately to their Governments on the great damage that is being done in terms of British confidence in the European Union as a result of the way in which the EC is handling the matter?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly draw that interesting suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who is already in touch with his fellow Foreign Ministers across the European Union. I share the view expressed by my right hon. Friend. The evidence shows that British beef is safe, as both the Commission President and the Agriculture Commissioner have acknowledged. I am delighted to see this afternoon that the Wimpy chain has lifted the ban on British beef with immediate effect and I have no doubt whatever that that is the right decision.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26406]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Prentice: Three times on Tuesday the Prime Minister failed to give a direct answer to questions about discussions he had had with the Deputy Prime Minister. I ask him now whether he has ever discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must listen to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Prentice: Has the Prime Minister ever discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility that he would stand aside and allow his deputy to take over if, by tomorrow, Conservative party fortunes have not improved?

The Prime Minister: The last Labour politician who was that smug about elections is now earning his living elsewhere in Europe.

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday May. [26407]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that another vital election is about to take place—the one in Northern Ireland leading to negotiations on 10 June when the people of Northern Ireland will be able to decide their future for themselves through peaceful and democratic means? Does he agree that the time has come for the IRA to stop trying to coerce and blackmail the people of Northern Ireland and to abandon terrorism?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is no absolutely no credible reason for the IRA not to stop its violence immediately. The all-party negotiations will be serious and they will start on 10 June. Sinn Fein can play a part in them if there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire. In that case, Sinn Fein will find itself in the same position as other political parties. As I have said many times, the choice is for the IRA to make and I hope that it will make it. It will certainly gain nothing by waiting, still less by more violence, which can only call even further into question its readiness to adopt peaceful methods. Whether there is a ceasefire or not, the talks will go ahead.

Mr. Soley: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland right to refuse to distribute European Union posters on Europe day?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is a very proud Scot and the flag that he wishes to see flying in Scotland is the Union flag—so do I.

Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 [26408]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the satisfaction in my constituency that unemployment has fallen to 4.5 per cent? Is he aware that there is particular satisfaction this week because Labour lost control of St. Edmundsbury borough council? Does my right hon. Friend share the view of the Labour councillor who defected to the Conservatives that, underneath a thin veneer, all those tawdry old socialist instincts of Labour remain alive and well?

The Prime Minister: Clearly, the lady concerned is a councillor with great insight. There is no doubt about what the fate is of those parts of the country that are unfortunate enough to have Labour councils: they pay higher council taxes. The 10 councils with the highest council tax are all Labour-controlled, and that is the message that every voter should remember. If voters want to pay an extra £225 a week on band D, all they have to do is to vote Labour, and it will be guaranteed.

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May [26409]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gapes: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that economic and monetary union is no threat to the nation state?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at what my right hon. and learned Friend has said—he would then not misrepresent him.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a misrepresentation to allege that Euro-realists urge that Britain leave the European Union? Does he agree that we have now reached a position at which we should be


having a proper discussion in the intergovernmental conference on all the fundamental issues? As I said at the end of last year's leadership contest, we should be talking to one another—in Europe and in the United Kingdom—rather than at one another.

The Prime Minister: I am very much in favour of that type of dialogue. There is no doubt that it is the right position for the United Kingdom to play a leading role in the European Union, but it is equally right to say that that does not mean that we shall necessarily agree with our colleagues on many issues. We are as entitled to fight our corner and disagree as any other nation state in Europe.
I intend to stay at the centre of the European debate, assessing, on each issue, what is best for the British national interest—in precisely the same way in which other heads of Government will assess what is right for their countries—and always arguing for the sort of Europe that the Government believe is right for the whole of Europe.

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26410]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Chisholm: Given the unsatisfactory replies given on bovine spongiform encephalopathy earlier to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), is it not time that we have a Government who are taken seriously in Europe? Will he condemn the infantile and counter-productive gesture politics of the Secretary of State for Scotland in refusing to allow the European flag to fly for one day next week?

The Prime Minister: I answered that question some moments ago. I do not know quite where the hon. Gentleman was then, but the answer I gave then still stands.

Mr. David Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation and thanks of my constituents because the Government went further than they were originally prepared to go on the Housing Bill, which received its Third Reading earlier this week, in giving special control provisions to local authorities to deal with the seedy bedsits and squalid landlords that were threatening our towns with decline and decay? Does he agree that those provisions will need political will and determination to be implemented effectively, and will he remind our voters of that as they go to the polls today?

Mr. Mackinlay: He is not one of us.

The Prime Minister: That is certainly true, nor, as my hon. Friend is a man of taste and discretion, would he

wish to be one of them. As for the legislation that my hon. Friend mentioned, there has been a problem in recent years with many people moving, particularly to seaside towns. It is right to have taken the measures that we have. I hope that those measures will stop the abuse of the social security system and the difficulties faced recently by many seaside towns.

Mr. Beggs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26411]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Prime Minister share the view of Fergus Finley, who thinks for Dick Spring, that if Sinn Fein does not attend the talks in Northern Ireland, the talks will be a waste of time? Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that the participation of democratic parties in the forthcoming talks will have influence?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. What we need to see in the forthcoming talks is the democratic parties meeting, talking and seeking to reach a position that will enable there to be agreement in Northern Ireland. I emphasise the point that it is for the democratic parties. If there is no credible, clear-cut and certain ceasefire, Sinn Fein in no sense can claim to be a democratic party and it will not be there, as other parties will.

Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26414]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. Friend seize this opportunity to remind the House once again that the superior management and policies of Conservative councils deliver better services and lower taxes for council tax payers—some £225 lower, I believe, for the average band D household?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that. One only has to see the performance of Labour councils to illustrate it. I see that the shadow Environment Secretary is not here. If he were, he could explain why bad debts cost Camden tax payers £2.95 for every dwelling every week. Perhaps Opposition Members can explain why the highest band D council tax is in Labour Liverpool and why the highest amounts of council tax are in Labour Lambeth. I could stretch the list from here until next Tuesday, so bad and so inefficient are Labour councils.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
TUESDAY 7 MAY—Second Reading of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Contracting Out (Administration of Civil Service Pension Schemes) Order.
WEDNESDAY 8 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [11th allotted day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the prospects for water supplies this summer, followed by a debate on the fire service. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 9 MAY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
FRIDAY 10 MAY—Private Members' Bills. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 MAY—Opposition Day [12th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, of which the subject-understandably—has not yet been announced.
TUESDAY 14 MAY—Opposition Day [13th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject of which also—understandably—has not yet been announced.
Motions relating to the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations and the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 15 MAY—Until 2 o'clock. there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 16 MAY—Until about 7 o'clock, proceedings on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.
FRIDAY 17 MAY—Debate on education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 8 May to consider European Community Documents as follows:
European Standing Committee A: There will be a debate on the welfare of calves.
European Standing Committee B: There will be a debate on consumer credit. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
The House may also wish to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 15 May there will be a debate on agricultural prices for 1996–97 in European Standing Committee A and a debate on fraud in European Standing Committee B.

[Wednesday 8 May:

European Standing Committee A—European Community Documents 13099/95, Welfare of Calves 4647/96. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xii (1995–96)

European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents: 7774/95 and unnumbered on consumer credit. Relevant European Legislation Reports: HC 70-xxiii (1994–95, HC 70-xxv (1994–95) and HC 51-xi (1995–96)

Wednesday 15 May

European Standing Committee A—European Community Document 5215/96, Agricultural Price Proposals 1996–97. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 5 I-xiv (1995–96)

European Standing Committee B—European Community Document 4512/96, Detection of Fraud and Irregularities. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC5 I-xv (1995–96)

Debate on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Relevant documents: Council Document 5215/96 ADD 1, Volume I of 29 February 1996; Council Document 5215/96 ADD 2, Volume II of 7 March 1996; Council Document 5215/96 ADD 3, Volume III of 18 March 1996; Explanatory Memorandum 5215/96 ADD 1 and 2, Volumes I and II of 12 March 1996; Explanatory Memorandum 5215/96 ADD 3, Volume III of 12 March 1996; the Commons Select Committee Report on Explanatory Memoranda 5215/96 ADD 1, 2 and 3, Volumes I, II and III of 27 March 1996.]

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for once again giving us as much notice as possible of future business. Can he shed light on rumours that the Government intend to clear the decks of Government business by July to minimise the need for a spill-over session in October and so prepare the ground for an autumn election?
As the right hon. Gentleman has been sympathetic when I have previously requested a debate on parliamentary reform, will he assure us that even if such a debate cannot take place in the next couple of weeks, we will be able to debate that important matter before the summer recess? As he is in the process of planning the business leading up to the summer recess, will he say why we still have not had a date for the remaining stages of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill? Is it because the Government suffered significant defeats in Committee on the rights of disabled people? He knows that there is bound to be a suspicion that the unusual delay in returning the Bill to the House is because Government Ministers are plotting to overturn those amendments, which would mean a great deal to disabled people. It would be help everyone if we knew when the Bill was coming back.
Everyone recalls the tragedy at Dunblane. At that time, there were many calls for changes in the law on the possession of firearms. It was right not to take instant decisions at the height of the grief that everyone felt then, but we understand that the Government have now made a submission on gun control to the Cullen committee of inquiry. Would it not be right for the House to contribute to that debate, in what I hope would be a measured way, before the Government reach any final conclusions on what changes might be appropriate to gun control?
My other point is also specific and important. The Leader of the House announced that the debate on the common agricultural policy on Wednesday 15 May is to be on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I ask him to reconsider that decision. Will he confirm that previous debates on that, the big set-piece agriculture debate of the year, have been on take note motions and therefore amendable? Why is he so adamant that this year's debate should be on the motion for the Adjournment? Of which amendments are the Government more afraid: those that might be tabled by the Opposition or those of their Back Benchers? Or are they afraid of any vote on any issue connected with Europe?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might take the last point first. The hon. Lady did not present a full picture of what I proposed in my statement. I proposed both scrutiny in European Standing Committee A, where complex and detailed proposals can be scrutinised extremely effectively—including by the questioning of Ministers—and at the same time I provided for the annual debate, which the House rightly expects, on agricultural matters on the Floor of the House at a time when there are many matters of great interest in agriculture which go well beyond the technicalities of the CAP. My proposals give the House the most effective form of scrutiny in detail and a full opportunity to debate matters of interest. In combination, of course, that is a greater opportunity than would be provided by either proposal on its own.
On the question of Dunblane and guns, the hon. Lady is quite right that the Government have presented, and published, their evidence to Lord Cullen's inquiry. I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House may wish to submit observations. I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Lady's request for a debate on the subject.
On the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, there is nothing sinister or devious about the position. My right hon. and hon. Friends obviously wish to consider carefully what happened in Committee and it would be quite wrong were they to do otherwise.
On the question of a debate on parliamentary reform, I have always said that I see some attractions in such a debate. I will continue to bear in mind the requests for a debate, but the hon. Lady will realise that there is a great deal of Government business to be carried through at present.
I agree that there are a lot of rumours about, including the suggestion that the House might rise at a very early date in July. I do not know who is putting those rumours around; I only know that it is not me and I do not wish to give any credence to them.
Finally, and as ever, I express my thanks to the hon. Lady for her thanks at the beginning of her remarks.

Mr. Edward Gamier: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon for a short debate on planning regulations as they relate to the erection of mobile telephone masts? A number of my constituents have written to me to complain about the way in which those masts appear in beautiful parts of Leicestershire without proper scrutiny by local planning committees. This matter is one of increasing public interest and I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could provide time for a short debate.

Mr. Newton: I am aware of concerns that have been expressed in many constituencies, including my own. I will, of course, bring my hon. and learned Friend's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I, too, acknowledge with thanks the announcement by the Leader of the House of the provisional business for the week starting 13 May? It is always useful to have such information. In that context, may I ask him to give special consideration through the usual channels to the date for the minority Opposition day? I have not had a chance to discuss that with colleagues or other minority parties, but the proposed date clashes with the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Dundee, so that might cause some difficulties. I hope that that problem can be discussed through the usual channels.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also give us an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make sure that he gives regular reports on the important subjects raised today by the Leader of the Opposition with the Prime Minister about the cattle disposal scheme? That must get started, and the sooner the better.

Mr. Newton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend will continue to make reports to the House as appropriate. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about what is going on at this very moment to ensure the implementation of the 30-month cull scheme and to ensure that information about it is widely communicated.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he well knows that we always listen, even if we cannot always respond as he would like, to representations made through the usual channels. As it happens, there was one change in the business I announced, made in response to some other representation through the usual channels. We will obviously consider the hon. Gentleman's representations.

Mr. John Butcher: May we have a debate on the system of justice in this country given the growing evidence that a proportion of High Court judges seem to have lost all touch with reality? During that debate we could refer in particular to Sir Richard Scott's cash-for-treason judgment, under which he awarded £70, 000 to George Blake, who betrayed and therefore condemned to death 42 British agents. Does my right hon. Friend regret that that particular judge cannot be sentenced to two years counselling by the SAS? Failing that—

Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Gentleman that if he is seeking to criticise any member of the judiciary we have procedures to do that through substantive motions.

Mr. Butcher: Of course I accept your judgment, Madam Speaker. I would convert my comments into a request for such a debate to consider a Bill to allow the House to ban the prospect of treason being rewarded in that way.

Mr. Newton: In the light of your comment, Madam Speaker, I might be wise simply to take delivery of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about the


reduced earnings allowance? As an ex-Social Security Minister, he will know that in the late 1980s a law was passed which has enabled that reduced earnings allowance to be cut dramatically by about 75 per cent. during the past few weeks. That has affected literally thousands of people who were disabled in the mines and various other organisations throughout Britain. Is he aware that that cut has resulted in severe hardship for many of these people? Will he consider a statement on this matter so that we can look at it afresh?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous attender, was probably present last week when I made some observations on the subject and the background to it. The House settled the law in this area some considerable time ago. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on cruelty to animals so that the latest RSPCA annual report can be considered? The report reveals that cruelty to horses has increased by 60 per cent. in the past 12 months and that unpleasant cruelty to dogs and to other animals is also increasing. Many hon. Members are concerned about this issue and I would be grateful if we could have an early debate on it.

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the matter that he has raised. However, he may have noted that in my statement today I announced a debate on the welfare of calves—another point about which the hon. Gentleman is interested—in European Standing Committee A next Wednesday. I remind my hon. Friend that any hon. Member may attend and take part in the debates in those Standing Committees.

Mr. Harry Barnes: When in Government time will we have a debate on the pathetic state of the electoral registers in this country? Clearly, we have to act as there will be a general election at some time in the future. There are 3 million to 4 million people missing off the electoral registers, including young, poor and black people. This issue should be of great concern to any hon. Member who depends on the people themselves.

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman implied, this is a matter that he has raised on a number of occasions. I can think of nothing to say on this occasion that I have not said before.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I thank my right hon. Friend for calling the debate on education and training for young people aged between 16 and 19. It would have been more appropriate for this subject to be debated on an Opposition day because we are all aware of the intention of the Labour party to withdraw child benefit to the tune of £560 from every young person in that age range who is in education and training. That Labour party proposal will particularly hit young people from unskilled homes. Under the Labour Government, less than one fifth of those young people stayed on in education; under the Conservative Government, half of them stay on in education.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to remind hon. Members—and the country—of the policy of the Labour party in this regard. It seemed inconceivable that the Opposition would seek to debate this important subject, so I thought that it was appropriate to do so on a Government day.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I associate myself with the request of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for a debate on animal welfare. Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday 1, 500 people from Compassion in World Farming were at central hall? There was considerable anger about the proposed treatment of cows as a result of BSE and the culling of large numbers of animals, including working cows, calves and even healthy beasts. This is appalling and it is being done in the name of restoring public confidence. There is not much public confidence in the Government at the moment, but surely no one would suggest that we should cull Ministers.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are a bit over the top. The underlying objective of these policies is to preserve the livelihoods of almost 650, 000 people who work in and around the industry. He should not dismiss that aim in the way that his remarks imply. Nevertheless, I respect the hon. Gentleman's concern for animal welfare and I draw his attention to the debate on the welfare of calves in European Standing Committee A next week. He can take part in those discussions if he wishes.

Mr. Peter Luff: Given the accelerating trend among Labour and Liberal-controlled local education authorities to deny young students of dance and drama access to discretionary awards, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the terms of the debate on education and training will enable right hon. and hon. Members to refer to that important subject and enable the Government to make constructive proposals to tackle the problem? It would certainly reassure the parents whom I shall meet tomorrow night at a leading Worcestershire dance school, who face agonising choices about their young children's future.

Mr. Newton: I am sorry to hear of the circumstances in Worcester. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the subjects, and I think that would certainly be within the scope of the debate that I have announced because it is on a motion for the Adjournment. That illustrates the advantages of debates on the Adjournment, to provide for wide-ranging debate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make time available in the very near future for an urgent debate on the treatment of asylum seekers in this country? That would allow the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), to explain at the Dispatch Box why she leaked to the newspapers last night the information that Adae Onibiyo, a young Nigerian, is due to be deported tomorrow and that she has refused to meet any Member of Parliament between now and tomorrow to discuss his safety or any removal arrangements. It would also allow her to explain the basic inhumanity of holding in custody for more than a year a young man, aged 20, who has committed no crime in this country, and who has been


denied education, freedom and access to his family because of that abominable treatment by the British Government.

Mr. Newton: I would want to make sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, although without for a minute accepting the flavour of his observations directed at her. It is well within the hon. Gentleman's knowledge that asylum matters generally are under consideration in another place at present, and that will in due course no doubt lead to further debate here.

Mr. Richard Spring: I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend of the debate on the common agricultural policy being expanded to agricultural matters in general. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that could include discussion, not only on BSE, but on the great prosperity currently enjoyed by the farmers of East Anglia?

Mr. Newton: The answer to that is yes. It again illustrates the advantages of providing for a debate on the Adjournment, which would enable all those issues to be embraced.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 768?
[That this House is alarmed by the growth of trafficking in Khat, a drug illegal in America, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Ireland amongst others; recognises that the discrepancy in British law with that of other countries has led to the conviction and imprisonment of British subjects abroad for importation and possession of Khat; is concerned about the health problems associated with Khat, notably paranoid psychosis and hypomania and about the increasing social problems caused by this substance in some communities; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make Khat a controlled substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.]
I remind the Leader of the House that khat is legal in this country but illegal elsewhere in the world, and that a constituent of mine has now been imprisoned in Ireland as a result of carrying it. Several social and health problems are associated with it. Will he ask the appropriate Minister in the Home Office to make a statement at the Dispatch Box about the control of drugs or about the possibility of a debate on the misuse of drugs?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is probably aware that the background is that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which I believe is widely respected, advised in 1988 that in the United Kingdom there was insufficient evidence of misuse to justify bringing that plant under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We do, however, continue to monitor the position, and I will ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has his attention drawn to the concerns that the hon. Lady expressed.

Mr. John Marshall: When will we have the annual summer economic debate? Many of us would like to point out that unemployment in Britain is well below that in Germany, France, Spain and Italy, that industrial relations have been transformed since 1979 and that privatisation has been good for the consumer and the

taxpayer, who now receives £50 million a week from those industries whereas, in 1979, he had to pay £50 million towards their losses.

Mr. Newton: In view of the quality of my hon. Friend's rhetoric, I am tempted to change the business and announce such a debate for next week. I cannot quite go that far, but I will try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman and, I hope, also to please the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), by making a reasonably early announcement of when I expect the summer economic debate to be

Mr. John McFall: May I point out the tragic suicide of a young constituent of mine, Angela Bollan, aged 19, in Cornton Vale women's prison in Stirling last Friday, in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Scotland? I point out to the Leader of the House that that is the fourth suicide of young women in that prison in the past 10 months, so this is a very serious situation. I sat with the family of young Angela in their home last Friday, and they asked me to make urgent inquiries into the position in Cornton Vale. Will the Leader of the House pass on my comments to the Secretary of State for Scotland? May we have a statement in the House on the situation in prisons and any future policies designed to avoid such tragic consequences?

Mr. Newton: The House will understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising the matter in the way that he has. In a similar spirit, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland sees what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that, following an agreement through the usual channels on Tuesday night, the homeless clauses of the Housing Bill were galloped through with hardly any Back-Bench contributions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of homelessness is complex and raises a number of questions that go beyond the sensible reforms in the Bill? They include the rough sleepers initiative, which is being extended from London to the provinces. May we have a debate on that complex, but important subject?

Mr. Newton: One of my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen), once observed that many of the questions asked during business questions were speeches that had been frustrated during the week. We have just heard a classic case and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on releasing his frustration in that way.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my request for a debate next week on the safety of asylum seekers. You will also have heard me tell the House that the Minister had refused to meet me or any other hon. Member to discuss the safety of Ade Onibiyo. Are there any means by which the Minister of State or any other Minister from the Home Office can be brought to the House to explain their continuing behaviour—they essentially show contempt for hon. Members who legitimately try to raise issues of concern about people who are wrongly held in custody and wrongly deported from this country, often to places of danger?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise that matter with his Front-Bench team and through the usual channels. On the general issue, there is a convention that hon. Members have the right to make representations to Ministers; I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that and I expect that right to be recognised. Equally, Ministers are required to take decisions and it is for them to determine how to respond to hon. Members' representations. If a Minister took the view that he was prepared to take account only of representations that contained new material or new arguments, I could well understand that attitude. I make that point because I know that the hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about such matters.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

AGRICULTURAL STRATEGIES: EU AND THE ASSOCIATED COUNTRIES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 12503/95, relating to a study of alternative strategies for the development of relations in the field of agriculture between the EU and the associated countries with a view to the future accession of those countries; and supports the Government's intention to press for a Common Agricultural Policy which is affordable, in which support distorts neither prices nor production and is targeted on environmental and other specific objectives, which contains fair common rules and which facilitates the accession of these countries.

PROGRESS TOWARDS CONVERGENCE

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10380/95, a Commission report on Employment in Europe 1995; 11417/95, relating to the impact of currency fluctuations on the internal market; 11478/95, the Communication, The Future of Social Protection: a framework for a European debate; 11987/95, a report by the European Monetary Institute on Progress towards convergence; and 12633/95, relating to exchange rate relations between participating and non-participating countries in Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union; and agrees with the Government that Protocol (No. 11) annexed to the EC Treaty, which means that the United Kingdom is not committed to move to Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union, and can decide whether to join on the basis of the United Kingdom's national interest given the circumstances at the time, is to be welcomed.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill's purpose is to improve the law of arbitration as it applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Arbitration law has evolved over three centuries, with the development of commerce and industry. We are looking to refine the system of arbitration rather than to make any radical new departures.
At first sight, the Bill may appear to be no more than lawyers' law, but the Bill's benefits, both to business and to other users of arbitration, as well as what might be called the arbitration industry, will be substantial. The Bill is founded on the proposition that arbitration is a valid—and perhaps the preferred—alternativlitigation as a system for resolving disputes that inevitably arise in business and commerce. It certainly does not need excessive controls or to be made like litigation—what are needed are provisions that are primarily enabling and facilitative.
The Bill seeks to improve the current law in two main ways—it proposes certain changes to the substance of the law and introduces major improvements in the way the law is presented. Hon. Members may find it helpful if I say a little more about each aspect.
I start from the premise that commercial disputes are bound to arise from time to time. They are an inevitable part of business life. When such disputes occur, they need to be resolved as speedily as possible and without great expense if they are not to frustrate further transactions and divert time and resources from more productive activity.
Prompt dispute resolution, therefore, should contribute to competitiveness. At the same time, business looks to a system that is fair and delivers a final result. It is the responsibility of government to provide a framework that enables the parties to a dispute to settle it in a way that meets those needs.
The parties may decide that their dispute can best be dealt with through the courts. Last June, Lord Woolf presented an interim report to the Lord Chancellor on ways of improving access to justice in the context of the civil courts. He made a number of recommendations to reduce delays in litigation and tackle the complexity and cost of using the courts. The Bill has been framed with the same concerns in mind as they relate to arbitration.
We started from the principle that, if parties choose arbitration to resolve their dispute, their decision must be respected. We propose to curtail the ability of the court to intervene in that private arbitral process except where the assistance of the court is clearly necessary to move the arbitration forward. At the same time, we must uphold the integrity of the arbitral process by allowing access to courts where there has been or is likely to be a case of manifest injustice.
The concept of an arm's length relationship with the courts is certainly not new and has been refined and developed over the year. It reinforces the finality of arbitration. The involvement of the courts slows down the


process and has the inevitable result of adding to costs. Freeing the process from unwanted interference by the courts is, therefore, positively deregulatory.
To this end, we have strengthened the powers available to the arbitral tribunal. For example, unless the parties agree otherwise, the tribunal has the power to order security for costs. Under current law, that power is exercisable only by the courts. We have given primary responsibility to the parties and, in the absence of such agreement, to the tribunal to decide all procedural or evidential matters and powers exercisable by the tribunal in support of the arbitration. The court can act in support of the arbitration only where the tribunal has no power or is temporarily unable to act effectively.
Of course it is necessary to provide checks in the Bill to ensure that the tribunal acts fairly and impartially in the exercise of its powers. Principles of fairness and impartiality are included in the general principles on which the Bill is based. They appear right at the start of the text so that users are left in no doubt about their importance. The duty of the tribunal to act fairly and impartially is restated at clause 33. The Bill provides that arbitrators who fail to live up to their responsibilities can be removed from office.
Another key principle that is central to the Bill, and is mentioned in clause 1, is party autonomy. That means, with a few exceptions for reasons of public policy, that the parties in dispute can decide how the arbitration should be conducted. That gives the parties control over such issues as how many arbitrators there should be and any arrangements for discovery. In that way, the Bill gives the parties the maximum possible freedom to keep the costs of the arbitration in check.
There is also a specific provision in the Bill whereby, with the parties' agreement, the tribunal can cap the recoverable costs of the arbitration. Where the parties have not taken the opportunity to devise their own arrangements, the Bill sets out default provisions so that the arbitration can proceed without delay. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the improvements that I have outlined so far will assist business to resolve disputes more speedily and cost effectively while not compromising fairness. As I have said, that should contribute to enhanced competitiveness as it will enable companies to settle disputes with the minimum of fuss and distraction from their main business activities.
At first sight, presentation might seem of minor importance, but I suggest that it is a key ingredient of an improved arbitration Bill. Law is not just for lawyers. If users are to be attracted to arbitration, they must be able to establish with the minimum of effort what the law entails. Those hon. Members who are familiar with the current statutes will know that that is far from easy at the moment. The fact that the law is spread over three statutes—the Arbitration Act 1950. the Arbitration Act 1975 and the Arbitration Act 1979—is not helpful, and the language used is far from accessible to the layman.
However, the problem goes deeper. The statutes do not represent a coherent picture. To a large extent, they represent legislative reaction to particular issues as they have arisen from time to time. In the new Bill, we have tried to give a comprehensive and a coherent statement of the principles and practice of arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Bill combines a restatement of the current statute law, modified as I

outlined previously, with codification of the more important principles of arbitration law developed through the courts. The layout of the Bill follows a logical sequence and the language used is as clear and as simple as possible. The draftsman should be congratulated.
I am sure that the improved presentation will find favour with business both here and overseas. Without the Bill, there might have been a question mark over the future of the City of London as a world centre for the arbitration of international commercial disputes. When international companies are negotiating contracts and have to decide—often at the end of a long, tough session—where any disputes will be arbitrated, they need to know quickly and easily what rights and obligations they have under the arbitration law of any given country.
The business of arbitration is highly internationally mobile. A number of other jurisdictions have been trying to make their legislation more accessible, and we cannot afford to be left behind. The fact that companies choose to arbitrate in London, despite the current muddled law, is a testimony to the high regard in which the arbitral community is held. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. The Bill will do much to enhance the competitiveness of the arbitration industry.
Hon. Members have had to wait a long time for the Bill to be placed before them, but I am sure that they will agree that the wait has been worth while. My Department has been responsible for its development since 1992, but work was progressing in the private sector for some time before then. As far back as 1989, Lord Mustill, in his capacity as chairman of the Department's advisory committee on arbitration law, first recommended that our arbitration law needed a serious overhaul. The work begun by Lord Mustill was carried forward first by Lord Steyn and it then fell to the current chairman of the advisory committee, Lord Justice Saville, to complete the task.
We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the three chairmen—particularly Lord Justice Saville—and to the members of the advisory committee who have served under them. I took over responsibility for the Bill in the final days of its preparation, but I am fully aware of the immense effort that the judge and his team have made in the past 18 months to bring the complex project to fruition.
The Bill has been warmly welcomed by the arbitration world. It was scrutinised carefully in another place by noble Lords, including several noble and learned Lords, and I am glad to say that it passed muster. We were much gratified by the support given to the Bill by the official Opposition and by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). It gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Today, I have drawn the shadow Cabinet short straw and, instead of being in my constituency on local election day, I am left here. It is a pleasure to debate with the Under-Secretary and, in the past few weeks, we have been constant companions, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, morning, noon and night. I have enjoyed the discussions with the Under-Secretary, but I think that this one will be the most pleasurable that he has had with me for some time because of the Opposition's position on the Bill.
I said earlier that I should be in my constituency as it is local election day. My local agent has substituted me on the loudspeaker with a tape of my favourite,


Jimmy Krankie. Worryingly, I understand that nobody has yet been able to tell the difference. [Laughter.] That is the last of the jokes.
The Under-Secretary was right when, at the conclusion of his remarks, he said that the official Opposition and our parliamentary colleagues from the Liberal Democrats broadly welcomed the Bill in another place. Given the amount of international trade created by arbitration, and its contribution to this country's invisible earnings, we are pleased that proposals have come forward to simplify arbitration proceedings in England and Wales. We are relieved because the lack of commitment shown in the past by the Government had threatened the future of that important source of invisible earnings, of which London is an international centre. A movement to reform arbitration law has existed for 10 years yet, unbelievably, the Government still wasted time before making their proposals.
Arbitration for the resolution of commercial disputes is of vital importance. England has been the preferred forum for the settlement of disputes by arbitration in vast areas of international trade—the Under-Secretary alluded to that fact—and we were in danger of losing much of the trade to the courts of arbitration in Holland, France, Switzerland and other areas, because English law had become outdated, unnecessarily obscure and far too legalistic.
A number of eminent lawyers, headed by Lord Justice Saville, have led the battle to defend London as the arbitration centre of the world. It is just as well that we did not have to rely on the Government to undertake that task over the past decade. Conservative Back Benchers have, on occasions, ranted and raved about the powers of the European Court of Justice, yet when urgent action was needed to defend our legal system, they, until now, sat on their hands. As the Minister of State at the Home Office might say, they should be chained up for their behaviour.
The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law adopted a model law of arbitration in 1985, which was the first worldwide step towards simplification. Scotland, not for the first time, was quick off the mark and adopted the United Nations model. England and Wales declined to do so.
The departmental advisory committee of the Department of Trade and Industry, chaired by Lord Justice Mustill, as he then was, reported in 1989 on the direction that English law should take. The committee said that a new Act, consolidating the existing arbitration statutes of 1950, 1975 and 1979, but making a number of innovations, was required and that, above all else, the law should produce an easily readable and accessible Act that could be understood and operated by lay arbitrators, reducing court intervention to the minimum. That was accepted by the then Secretary of State, but in the full flood of privatisation, the Government made neither funding nor other resources available to enact the policy.
The work of the departmental advisory committee was shelved until the Bill was produced. How often have we seen such a blinkered attitude? In the absence of DTI support, in 1990 a private group of arbitrators, funded by a collection of City solicitors, briefed counsel to produce a Bill. After two versions, the Department of Trade and Industry agreed to take it over and put it in the hands of a parliamentary draftsperson. A number of drafts have been

produced, but by general consensus the version before the House this afternoon fulfils the requirements of the Mustill report. It is logical, it is designed to be acted on by the layperson and most sections of the arbitration community are in favour of it.
Labour recognises that, according to the Bill, the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by impartial tribunals without unnecessary delay or expense. As the Opposition employment spokesperson, I have a great interest in the speedy resolution of disputes, especially with regard to industrial tribunals. As with the arbitration system, it is vital that industrial tribunals be streamlined and disputes be resolved as simply as possible. Labour is developing proposals to make the resolution of disputes more efficient; the courts must be used only as a last resort. This would save the taxpayer a great deal of money—by contrast with the Government's proposals. They are determined to place even heavier burdens on the industrial tribunal system.
In February this year, the House debated the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995, but the Minister offered no regulations worthy of the name. He simply said that the lack of guidance could be dealt with by industrial tribunals. That was wholly at odds with the promise given to the House on 18 March 1996 by the President of the Board of Trade, who said that he would publish a Bill to streamline the industrial tribunals system. So the Minister piled on the burdens in February and his boss, the Secretary of State, promised reform in March. What, in fact, is the Government's position? Will they reform the industrial tribunal disputes system, or was the idea—like job insecurity—all in the President's mind?
The Bill states that parties should be free to agree how disputes are resolved, and the structure of the legislation follows that principle. Labour supports the fact that, when parties do not take full advantage of this freedom, the Bill lays down comprehensive fallback positions for the convenience of the parties and of arbitrators who do not wish to make their own decisions in these matters and are content to accept conveniently laid out structures.
We welcome the fact that, for the first time, arbitrators are not to be held liable for anything they do or omit to do in the discharge of their duties unless they are shown to have acted in bad faith. Similar immunity is to be given to arbitration institutions in their capacity of appointing or nominating arbitrators. Parties now have greater freedom to say how they would conduct their arbitration; what rules of evidence should apply; and what procedures should be followed—whether according to law, and if so which law, or whether on the basis of the best solution for the parties without regard to law. This last is sometimes called an equitable solution. That is the basis on which a number of consumer-type arbitrations are conducted, either by an ombudsman or in areas of activity such as the travel industry.
The court is now to be involved only when the parties ignore the arbitrator's orders, and the court must be brought in for more powerful remedies. No longer will the parties, if dissatisfied with the arbitrator's directions, go to the court to have them overridden. The court's role now is to uphold whatever the arbitrators say, as long as they have discharged their duty in good faith. Thus, after an award, which must be reasoned, the court has certain powers not dissimilar to its present ones. The court can hear a challenge


from the parties on the grounds that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, despite the arbitrator's decision, or on the grounds of serious irregularity, or on a point of law.
As I have said, Labour supports the measure, but I want to raise a number of points and I would be obliged if the Minister responded to them, if not at the end of the debate then in writing.
First, I have heard suggestions that the Act will come into force on 1 January 1997, but that there may be delay. The Lord Chancellor's Department thinks that it may take longer to prepare what it considers necessary amendments with respect to the jurisdiction of the High Court and county courts in arbitration. Can the Minister confirm the target date of 1 January 1997 for enactment? Can he confirm that all steps will be taken to ensure that there is no delay? It would indeed be regrettable if this important measure were delayed for bureaucratic reasons—especially since the Lord Chancellor's Department has been represented on the departmental advisory committee since its inception.
I understand that the Department's role was specifically to avoid delay and conduct proper liaison. That being so, it would clearly be unacceptable—a charge of incompetence could be levelled—if the Bill were delayed because of inadequacies on the part of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Secondly, Lord Justice Saville has raised a concern about a cross-reference between clause 107(5) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill and the provisions of this Bill as applied to the scheme for adjudication. Lord Justice Saville is an eminent and experienced lawyer. In a letter to the business law unit at the Department of Trade and Industry, dated 17 April, he says:
I am unhappy with present proposals (regarding the cross reference) which seem to muddle two quite separate concepts, namely arbitration and adjudication.
It seems to me that there are two ways in which the problems could be addressed.
Firstly, it would be possible to use the Arbitration Bill by incorporating into standard terms the agreement of the parties to operate Clause 39, giving the tribunal the power to order interim measures, which would (under sub-section (3) be subject to the final adjudication of the tribunal. If this course were adopted, then the rest of the Arbitration Bill would apply and there would be no need for any further detailed provisions.
Secondly, it seems to me that it should be possible to devise a scheme of adjudication quite separate and distinct from arbitration, where the adjudicator is empowered to make temporarily binding decisions.
Lord Justice Saville continued:
The present proposals, to my mind, are likely to cause confusion and to distract from the Arbitration Bill. It also seems they are meeting substantial opposition. The overall impression that I get from what is indeed a very cursory look at the problem is that it would be unwise to continue with the present proposals, and that it would be far better to sit down with interested parties and try to work out precisely what is wanted and how it can best be achieved.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that I could not have put it better myself. Has the Minister read that letter? If so, what was his response?
The opposition to which Lord Justice Saville refers is widely shared in the construction industry. Will the Minister take into account the views of Lord Justice Saville and consider the removal of the cross reference?

If not, there is a serious risk that, in construction industry dispute resolution, the purpose and effect of the Arbitration Bill, which we all support, will be blunted.
Thirdly, I shall speak about the construction sector in relation to the measure. The Bill, especially if Lord Justice Saville's point is acted on, should lead to arbitration in construction disputes becoming what it was once, and what it should be—a quick, effective and economical way of deciding largely technical disputes arising from construction contracts. The Bill is a sister measure to the relevant sections of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, which will bring the Latham report into law. Sir Michael Latham's report was set up against a background of increasing concern about the number of disputes arising from contractual practices in the construction industry and the effect that they have on the industry's productivity and competitiveness.
Both the Arbitration Bill and the Latham report are welcome, but some arbitrators have raised doubts about clause 69 because most of the joint contracts tribunal family of building contracts and sub-contracts contain a provision by which the parties agree in advance to refer any question of law to appeal. If, at the end of clause 69(2) (a), the words
provided that any such agreement shall not be effective unless reached after the dispute to which the arbitral proceedings relate has arisen
were added, there might be less clogging up of the courts. Perhaps the Minister will consider that amendment when the Bill goes into Committee. If not, perhaps he will write to me saying why he will not consider it.
What of the appalling contracts sometimes offered to construction workers? Cowboy employers tend not to enter into arbitration agreements, so there is nothing in the Bill for exploited employees. Is the Minister aware that trade unions in the construction industry have been forced to launch a major drive to end tax fiddles by contractors who force building workers into bogus self-employment to avoid national insurance and tax payments? Mr. George Henderson, construction secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, is quoted in Construction News of 25 April 1996, as saying:
This campaign is a drastic measure which we are forced to take after years of urging these employers to play by the rules.
My officers are working undercover on the situation so that we can expose crooked labour agents, "—
labour agents in construction, not Labour parliamentary agents—
and the guilty contractors and subcontractors.
I understand that the main construction employers are supporting the union's actions, because they recognise that such dishonesty benefits neither side of industry. Will the Minister offer his support to the campaign?
The self-employment trick is not confined to small projects. An estimated 10, 000 construction workers are in bogus self-employment. Quite apart from being illegal, the practice poses a serious threat to health and safety. A report in Contract Journal, also dated 25 April 1996, quotes a trade union official as saying:
There are cases of injured people being dumped outside hospitals and left there to be picked up by hospital staff because the employer was too frightened to call an ambulance because this would reveal the location of the work site.
Labour will give the Bill a fair wind, and assist in its speedy implementation. In return, will the Minister consider proposals to assist construction employees and


taxpayers who are cheated by those underhand, Arthur Daley-style practices? As I have said, Labour supports the Bill because it is a commonsense measure to assist dispute resolution. It is in line with our commitment to streamline dispute resolution in general. If the Government share our support for a reform of general industrial dispute resolution, will the Minister tell us when the House will be presented with the legislation to reform tribunals which was promised by the President of the Board of Trade on 6 February? Given that his right hon. Friend promised consultation, will the Minister tell us whether the consultation process has begun? Will he give details of whom he will consult, and will he give us a guarantee that the consultation submissions will be published so that hon. Members can give proper consideration to the proposals following their publication?
Does the Minister accept the urgency of reform? He will be aware that, in order to cope with an unprecedented increase in its caseload, the Central Office of Industrial Tribunals was forced to open another tribunal office in north London. The Department of Trade and Industry advertised for lay members on a temporary basis, and that created further confusion. Temporary members were subject to different selection and reselection criteria from permanent members. Will the Minister explain why? Surely a lay member is either competent or not competent. Can we not simply have one set of rules for all appointees?
As part of their reform, will the Government also consider giving reasons for non-reappointment, and a right of reply? That would avoid any repeat of the embarrassment that was caused last year when a lay member was given no reason for non-reappointment, but a memo from the president of The Industrial Tribunals in England and Wales questioning his mental capacity for the task subsequently came to light.
Labour's commitment to a fair resolution of conflicts goes further than contracts between companies. We seek the meaningful resolution of disputes between companies and their employees, another concept that is sometimes alien to the Government. They have created unprecedented job insecurity among employees, paving the way for fat-cat excess among some unscrupulous employers. Those are wider issues, however; we intend to pursue them relentlessly with the Government, but today we shall assist the passage of the Bill into Committee—and, in the time that is left, we shall gleefully await the results of the local government elections.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I, too, welcome the legislation, which defines new powers for arbitrators and parties to arbitration.
There is no doubt that new provisions are required to provide a more effective management procedure and to give the courts a supporting rather than an interfering role. The Bill modernises the existing processes of arbitration, and also provides a viable and attractive alternative to litigation as a means of resolving disputes. In many ways it is an admirable and much-needed Bill, relying as it does on three main principles—the provision of an impartial tribunal to resolve disputes, the giving of greater freedom to parties in regard to how they resolve those disputes, and the confining of judicial interference to the bare minimum.
Moreover, as both the Minister and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) pointed out, the implications of the Bill are commendable. The role of London as an eminent centre for international commercial arbitration is particularly important. The Bill can only exemplify the quality of our legislative framework and serve the interests of parties both at home and abroad when they enter into arbitration.
Having said that, I wish to make one observation about the Bill on which I hope that the Minister may be able to reassure me. The explanatory memorandum states that the Bill seeks to introduce certain changes in the law to confront the existing complex nature of the legislation and to make it fair. I agree that the Bill has more clarity than before and is logical in its language, and I echo the Minister's commendation of the draftsmanship.
There is one particular difficulty that I would like to look at before the measure becomes law. The Bill sets out mandatory, as well as non-mandatory, provisions for the parties involved to take on board and to consider before entering into arbitration. So long as mandatory provisions are recognised, users of arbitration can, as the Minister said, put forward their own provisions and proposals. My point is that members of the general public or representatives of small businesses entering into arbitration may not be fully aware of the option open to them of proposing some arrangements on their own part. They may not realise the extent to which they are entitled to propose their own ground rules. The outcome of this may be that they will rely very much more on the mandatory provisions, which might have the effect of giving arbitrators more power than ever before.
For those who do not understand the complex nature of the provisions, there is no protection against the immense power that the arbitrators will have. I would like to see some warning or information given to the parties that they have the option of employing their own provisions before they simply resort to taking on the mandatory provisions.
The Department of Trade and Industry has said that people ought to read the Arbitration Bill, or Act as it will become, before entering into arbitration, and that if they do not do so, it is their look-out. I wonder whether we would normally expect members of the public or small firms to have read through statutes and to have understood an Act of Parliament. If we are talking about large companies with legal departments, it is not a problem. But the Government should indicate how they intend to publicise the fact that individuals and small firms have this opportunity for discussion, and what guidance the Government will give to people on how to make use of it. For example, a great deal of information and help is given in guidance to those using small claims courts, and I wonder whether it would be possible for something comparable to be done for the provisions in the Bill.
We ought to give careful consideration to that matter and to the various other issues raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). In no way am I opposing the Bill, but I hope that we will look at the point that I have raised before we nod it through this afternoon.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I should like to thank, in reverse order, the speakers who contributed to this debate. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) for his thoughtful contributions and his support. I shall certainly


reflect on the possibility of providing guidance on the use of this legislative instrument, but he will not be entirely surprised if I say that many practitioners of arbitration law have been able to contribute to the legislation and are well versed and skilled in it.
The hon. Member for Makerfield asked me about a number of matters concerning industrial tribunals. Without wishing to trespass on your job, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it occurs to me that this legislation is not about industrial tribunals at all. Since the hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to say that there was another channel of communication between us—that of correspondence—I invite him to write to me on the matter that he raised, and I shall do my best to furnish him with pertinent replies.
The hon. Member for Makerfield also asked me when we intended to enact the Bill. We will enact the Bill as soon as possible and we are working to a commencement date of January 1997. We must give sufficient warning of the changes to users and to the arbitration community. However, we certainly pledge ourselves to that date.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Will that date be placed on the face of the Bill or is it just a personal commitment?

Mr. Taylor: I must rest with best endeavours because the Bill is perfectly clear about the date of operation. Clause 108 states:

"(1) The provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different days may be appointed for different purposes.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate."
I had better cover myself by saying that there will be best endeavours towards the date I mentioned. However, one never knows; things happen when taking legislation as far as Royal Assent. We are working to a target commencement date of January 1997.

Mr. Michael Stephen: I had a case in which my constituents suffered financial loss as a result of misconduct by an arbitrator. I appreciate that that is very rare, but it did occur in my constituents' case. I had great difficulty extracting from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators information about whether the arbitrator was insured. I eventually found out that he was not insured and that the institute had no rules requiring arbitrators to be insured. Will my hon. Friend consider legislating to require arbitrators to be insured so that they can satisfy any claim for damages against them in respect of misconduct?
I also discovered that the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators seems to be answerable to nobody. Will my hon. Friend consider to whom it is answerable? And if it is answerable to nobody, will he consider legislating to make it answerable to somebody?

Mr. Taylor: That is an interesting experience. I should like to reflect on the subject of answerability and insurance. My hon. Friend will know that before I went straight I used to practise one of the learned professions. Insurance was essential in order to practise, and mighty expensive it could be from time to time. I have a certain personal affinity for that subject. I will reflect on it and let my hon. Friend know my further thoughts in due course.
The hon. Member for Makerfield mentioned read-across or interference between certain of the provisions of this Bill and some construction legislation that will be brought before the House next week, if I heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House correctly during Business Question Time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman and others will look at that matter then, although I believe that the previous anxieties are now considerably allayed.
I should say that neither we nor anyone else is trying to force arbitration on a reluctant industry, be it the construction industry or any other sector. Arbitration is a consensual process and it must be chosen freely by the parties. As to the point on clause 69(2)—

Mr. Ian McCartney: On clause 69, I am not sure that the Minister has dealt adequately with Lord Justice Saville's argument about cross-reference between the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill and this Bill. I asked the Minister clear and specific questions. First, I asked whether he had knowledge of or had been made aware of Lord Justice Saville' s letter to the relevant Departments. Secondly, I asked whether he had considered it and what response he had given to Lord Justice Saville. The Minister's reply was nicely put, as is the way of lawyers, but it did not adequately cover the questions I asked him. I need to know precisely whether Lord Justice Saville's point has been met, rejected or partially rejected. The point that he raises merits serious consideration as he is one of the leading experts in this area of legislation.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has already told me that he would be happy for me to pursue certain of these matters in correspondence. I shall take advantage of that. He also knows that there is a Committee stage to the Bill—when, no doubt, all those matters will be examined very carefully. My understanding on these matters, which I offer to the House in good faith, from the last instruction that I took before coming to the House today, is that anxieties about some form of read-across or interference between the two Bills have now been considerably allayed. The hon. Gentleman can take comfort from the fact that there will be a Committee stage to this Bill before very long, and he has the actuality of the other Bill next week.
I should like to say something about clause 69(2) and the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Makerfield.

Mr. McCartney: I am trying to do this in a manner that enables us to reach a conclusion earlier than we normally would. When the Minister says "considerably allayed", it again does not answer the point. As he rightly said, the Leader of the House announced today that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, about which there is some dispute, will have a Second Reading debate next week. It is therefore important to all those concerned that before that debate takes place the Government are absolutely clear about it and are able to provide clear and adequate information that there is no difficulty about cross-over in respect of the two pieces of legislation.
I think the Minister used the phrase "considerably allayed". Frankly, that leaves a gaping hole between the gate-post and the gate. He knows that in legal terms that leaves a lot that needs to be covered. I assume from the Minister's phraseology that he is not quite clear—I do not


mean this in a derogatory way—about the status of the discussions taking place between his Department and the Lord Justice. I will accept from him a commitment in good faith that he will write to us, but I ask that we receive the correspondence before the Second Reading debate next week; I can then consult my colleagues who are to deal with that piece of legislation so that Opposition Members can be clear about the fact that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved.

Mr. Taylor: I have two things to say about that. First, the letter from Lord Justice Saville to which the hon. Gentleman referred was a private letter to an official. I am therefore not prepared to comment on it.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must understand that arbitration is a consensual process. The Bill has had distilled between its two covers what people more learned than I consider to be a comprehensive statement of the English law of arbitration—the law of arbitration applicable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. One of its virtues is that all the information is in one "manual", and it is well and congenially written.
All hon. Members who have spoken in this debate—not least the hon. Member for North Devon—have said that they would like to see London as the arbitration centre of the world. I would rephrase that and say that I should like to see London as the arbitration capital of the world. Anyone wishing to settle their disputes by arbitration in London can—by obtaining a copy of the Bill once it has become law—have access in a single document to the basic ground rules. But the process remains consensual, and it is for the parties themselves to decide the ground rules for resolution of their disputes.
Inasmuch as I am not an expert on what the Department of the Environment's Bill will say about adjudication, the hon. Member for Makerfield should consult Environment Ministers if he wants to pursue whatever changes may be contained in that Bill. I am not the sponsor of that Bill, I am the sponsor of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman could pose the question of what is meant by "adjudication", and it might be a good question. We are not dealing here with adjudication, which is undefined—nor, in fact, is the word "arbitration" defined in the Bill—but I think that I can safely say that, over the best part of three centuries, custom and practice has developed in this country in such a manner that one knows from first principles what arbitration is, and here are the rules.

Mr. McCartney: We have been very fair in how we have asked that question. We support the Bill, so I do not understand why the Minister is suddenly becoming a little belligerent. The questions have been put reasonably, and in a manner that is meant to facilitate the passage of the legislation and its effectiveness.
The letter that I quoted is between officials in the Department of Trade and Industry who are dealing with this legislation and the Minister. It is highly unreasonable for

the Government now to say that it is private correspondence and make no comment on it. It is something that goes to the heart of a specific part of this legislation. I should have thought, with all due respect, that the Minister would already have consulted the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, who is responsible for the other Bill, to ensure that there is not a cross-over. So I ask the Minister again: will he ensure that, before the Second Reading debate next week, there will be clarification of those points?

Mr. Taylor: Yes. However, I am responsible for the content of this Bill, and I cannot anticipate what is in the other Bill. But I will oblige the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] There was an intervention from a sedentary position which I did not hear. So the fact that I am not responding to it is in no sense intended as a discourtesy. I remember the conventions of the silent ones who sit next to Ministers—that their opportunities to rise in their places and intervene in debates is severely circumscribed. It is a discipline that I observed myself for nearly four years.
I think that it might be convenient for us all if I concluded my remarks. We have had some interesting exchanges. The hon. Member for Makerfield has had his afternoon in the Chamber, and for all I know may yet get back for the local elections.

Mr. McCartney: I know the results—it is a foregone conclusion.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Do not be too smug.

Mr. Taylor: That is the right word.
While this is a long and technically complex Bill, if is of great importance to business and companies across the country, as well as to those from overseas who choose to come here to resolve their business disputes. Although it is technically complex, I hope that hon. Members will have been impressed with the clarity with which the concepts and procedures that make up arbitration have been expressed in the Bill. If hon. Members have had an opportunity to look at the current legislation, I am sure that they will agree that we are making a major step forward.
I should like to see this Bill reach the statute book as soon as possible, and I hope that I can count on hon. Members to support me. The Bill's next stage, in Committee, will give us an opportunity to consider its provisions in more detail than has been possible today, and I look forward to continuing our debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Mr. Joseph Marshall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Mr. Bill Walker: I should like to thank Madam Speaker for selecting for an Adjournment debate the tragic case involving the death of my constituent, Joseph Marshall, and my plea for a fatal accident inquiry. Last Friday, I drew attention to the advantages of the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution. Today I am making use of one of those advantages: the Adjournment debate.
It is always difficult for parents to come to terms with the death of a young adult son as the result of a road accident. It is made more difficult when the parents believe that the accident was not properly or fully investigated at the time. Pat and Betty Marshall are not vindictive people, although circumstances and events have made them distrustful and very apprehensive. All they have ever sought is that all the evidence in this tragic case should be brought out into the public domain. That is what my attempt this evening in this Adjournment debate is all about. Anyone who knows the road between Alyth and Blairgowrie, where the accident happened, will be aware that it is a narrow road with dips and bends, on which a number of nasty accidents have occurred.
Joseph Marshall was driving a Ford Sierra and he was in collision with a large horse box. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the road is narrow with dips and bends and consequently there are many blind spots. The horse box in question is 21 ft long and 8 ft wide and can only be described as a very large vehicle. So we have a large vehicle on a narrow road with dips and bends.
The Marshalls have been very disturbed by the conflicting evidence which they have managed to uncover. They have also been deeply concerned and shocked about what they believe were failures in the way in which the police conducted their investigation into the accident at the time.
In an attempt to get at the truth, the Marshalls have put a number of questions to the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State. For the record, I shall detail the questions, some of which have never been fully answered. Had they been answered, there would be no need for this debate tonight. The questions were as follows:
Why, despite laid down procedures in relation to slight injuries, was there no breath-test taken from the driver of the horsebox at the scene of the accident?
Why have several witnesses indicated the horsebox driver was drunk?
Why was a statement not taken from a business partner of the driver of the horsebox even though the person was on the scene of the accident before the emergency services and could have key information?
How did so many relatives and associates of the horsebox driver come to be on the scene and why has it been accepted without question by police that testimony from these witnesses, forming the bulk of their 'case', is uninfluenced and therefore independent?
Why are there so many conflicting, contradictory and self contradictory statements from witnesses?
Why have police intimidated witnesses whose statements challenge the accepted version?

Why were other, truly independent witnesses whose testimony may have been crucial, ignored?
Why did a known associate of the horsebox driver and subsequently a vital witness to the accepted version of events, go home and then return in a different car to pick up the passengers left behind at the scene?
Why did this same witness say he saw, prior to the accident and travelling in the opposite direction, only one of the other key witnesses despite this witness (white car) insisting that he was racing nose to tail with another of the witnesses in a silver car the whole time?
Why does testimony from this same witness conflict with that of his passengers?
Why is there doubt as to whether this witness was where he said he was at the time of the accident?
Why did police insist that the time of the accident was between 8.20-8.30 PM despite corroborated evidence which puts the time of the accident at approx. 8.45 PM?
Why did police insist that they have no knowledge of the driver of the white car despite interviewing him at the roadside at the time of the accident?
Why have police been selective with regard to which skidmarks were recorded as pertinent, completely ignoring marks which point to an entirely different scenario?
The car was fitted with an ABS braking system and should have left distinctive tyremarks on the road if it had gone into a skid. These marks were not present, why?
Independent experts have completely refuted the police assessment of the skid mark evidence, why?
The father of Joseph Marshall asked for and offered to fund, a reconstruction—this was refused, why?
Why do police insist that the 7.5 ton horsebox, travelling downhill at a minimum '35-40 mph', was brought to an immediate standstill by the force of the impact even though elementary physics clearly shows this to have been an impossibility?
Why do police insist that the 21 foot long, 8.5 foot wide, 7.5 ton lorry, fitted with a tachograph and capable of carrying 5 fully grown horses, is 'a van'?
Why was this same horsebox released from police care and dismantled immediately despite the most strenuous objections of the Marshall family that they have evidence which challenges the accepted version of events?
The tachograph disc from the horsebox is missing, why?
Why was a potentially crucial witness who saw the horsebox driving erratically' just prior to the accident told by police that this was unimportant to the case and therefore irrelevant?
Why was the police video of the accident scene delayed until several months after the accident and then filmed in weather conditions which effectively masked skid mark evidence?
Why on this same video was Joseph Marshall named as 'The Accused' even though firemen in attendance at the time of the accident were told that it would be the driver of the horsebox who would be charged with manslaughter?
How did the driver of the horsebox manage to locate his daughter and arrange for the ambulance he was travelling in to stop outside a public house en route to the hospital in order to pick her up even though his injuries were slight and he already had at least one son in the ambulance with him?
Why did a senior representative of General Accident with many years experience in his field state categorically that: 'The car [Sierra] was hit on its own side of the road giving the driver no chance'?
Why does the damage to the car challenge the 'accepted' version?
Why did one vital witness keep people away from Joseph Marshall as he lay fatally injured by claiming to be 'a nurse' when in reality she was employed as a process worker in a nearby factory?
Why did Mr. McLeod, Senior Procurator Fiscal, when faced with the evidence collected by Pat and Betty Marshall and presented by them in the company of their solicitor, say; 'I would not insult you both by trying to explain how the police came to this conclusion'?


Why is the evidence held by the Crown Office now subject to a Confidentiality Order (similar to Official Secrets Act), preventing anyone acting on behalf of Pat and Betty Marshall from examining it and effectively barring further investigation or any form of private prosecution?
Why, despite all of the above information being in the hands of the authorities, have Pat and Betty Marshall been refused, time and again, the only thing they have ever asked for—a Fatal Accident Inquiry?
Why did Officer Barclay, when asked by Pat Marshall when the breath-test was taken, reply: 'I don't know. The officer who did the test forgot to sign and date it'?
Why did Officer Barclay read out a statement allegedly taken from firemen in respect of the horsebox being cut to free the driver despite this being clearly not the case and then, after seeing the horsebox for himself, say to Pat and Betty Marshall that he must have misread it?
Why did Officer Barclay say to Pat, Betty and their 13–year-old daughter Michele, who were reading the messages of support contained in the floral tributes which had been laid at the crash scene by friends in the 3 days since the accident: Tat, these [tyre] marks don't measure up to the statements these people have given. I will have to go and see the'"—
so-and-so's—
'again'"?
Why did it take Officer Barclay three weeks to inform Pat and Betty Marshall that there were three more official witnesses to the crash, bringing the total to six, all of whom have given conflicting or self-contradictory statements?
Why did Officer Barclay say to Pat and Betty Marshall that 'the best thing you could do is just scrap the car [Sierra] and forget it'?
Why did PC Barclay, in Pat and Betty Marshall's own home, say about the horse box driver: 'He's probably had four or five pints. What's hat? It would have worn off by the time of the crash?'
How could Inspector Beaton (Blairgowrie Police) when asked by Pat Marshall if he would have the blood stains across the roof of the car analysed say: 'It's none of our business'?
What made this same inspector say to Pat and Betty Marshall: What's the fuss? Your son went up the road and killed himself.'
Why did the police issue Pat and Betty Marshall with their own insurance company claim number with the man at the desk quoting the Sergeant upstairs as saying: 'Just give him that one there, and that's all you're getting.'?
The Lord Advocate wrote to me on 23 January 1996 detailing his reasons for believing
that the evidence points to this accident having been caused by the deceased's vehicle rounding a bend at speed, on the wrong side of the road, and apparently out of control.
The letter continues:
The photographs and the sketch plan, both of which he has seen, do not seem to offer any support to Mr. Marshall's contention that it was the other vehicle which was on the wrong side of the road. On the contrary, this evidence seems to entirely support the evidence of the eye-witnesses.
Yet the damage to the car, confirmed by accident experts contradicts that claim.
If the Lord Advocate is so confident that the facts are as he sees them, and I am satisfied that he believes that, I cannot understand why he cannot grant what I am asking for this evening. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that on 23 August 1995, I asked for the case to be re-examined and in my letter to the Lord Advocate, I especially drew attention to the skid marks shown in the photographs and on the video.
I believe that I have demonstrated that there is enough evidence to question the conclusions reached by the procurator, the police and the Lord Advocate. I further submit that the only way to put the matter to rest is to have a fatal accident inquiry at which all the evidence, including that of all the witnesses, can be properly evaluated and the evidence of the accident experts properly heard. That can be achieved only through a fatal accident inquiry. It is the only way to get rid of all the doubts.
Almost everyone in Blairgowrie talks about the case and the fact that it has not been properly addressed. No one believes that it has. If after those matters are properly and fully evaluated, it is clear that the Marshalls' questions are wrong and that the facts that they believe that they have unearthed are wrong, it would all come out. As things are, nothing is being addressed. There is a great deal of secrecy. There is certainly evidence of intimidation, on which I shall not touch tonight because it will probably be dealt with in the courts. I find the whole thing distasteful and disturbing.
I am delighted that we have the unwritten United Kingdom constitution that gives me the opportunity through the use of an Adjournment debate to raise these matters where they can be properly addressed.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on securing this debate on behalf of his constituent. All the points that he has raised are matters for the Lord Advocate, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's request for a fatal accident inquiry is drawn to his attention. It is fair for me to put before my hon. Friend the sequence of events and the up-to-date position, as I understand it, in relation to this unfortunate matter. Before I respond to the points that my hon. Friend raised, I express my sympathy to the family of the late Mr. Marshall for their tragic loss.
Investigations conducted by officers of Tayside police and by the procurator fiscal at Perth into the death of Joseph Marshall have established that, on the evening of Saturday 28 August 1994, the deceased left the family home alone in possession of his father's Ford Sierra 4x4 motor car. He travelled to the Wellmeadow area of Blairgowrie, where he met up with friends who were in two other cars. The youths chatted for a while and then drove round Blairgowrie town centre in the three vehicles.
At about 8.35 pm, all three vehicles were driven eastwards on the A926, the Blairgowrie to Alyth road. The deceased was at the rear of the convoy. At about 8.40 pm, the deceased's vehicle collided with a Bedford horse box. The driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident was travelling west on the same road. He was accompanied by two other persons who were front-seat passengers. A Metro motor car was being driven behind the Bedford horse box. There were two passengers in the Metro in addition to the driver.
Those individuals, that is the three persons in the horse box and the three persons travelling in the Metro, were the only persons who witnessed the collision. In the statements that they gave to the police, they described seeing the deceased's vehicle rounding a bend at speed, on the wrong side of the road and apparently out of control.
The deceased's vehicle collided, side-on, with the front of the horse box, trapping the deceased and the driver of the horse box in their respective vehicles. One of the


passengers from the Metro supported the deceased's head until the arrival of medical assistance. The driver of the horse box sustained a broken left kneecap and was trapped by the legs in his vehicle.
A doctor who had been driving to Alyth came upon the scene of the accident and provided what assistance he could to the deceased. The deceased was unconscious and never regained consciousness. The doctor pronounced life extinct at 9.30 pm. The post mortem examination established that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries.
The evidence of the witnesses to the accident, and the evidence of those who observed the position of the vehicles immediately thereafter, showed that the deceased drove round a bend at speed, lost control of his vehicle, crossed to the wrong side of the carriageway and slid sideways into the oncoming horse box.
The deceased's father, Mr. Patrick Marshall, has never accepted this version of events, as my hon. Friend described. He has accused Tayside police of failing adequately to investigate the circumstances of the accident. He has suggested that the marks left on the road by the two vehicles do not support the version given by the witnesses, and that the six eye-witnesses have given conflicting or self-contradictory statements. He believes that it was the driver of the horse box who caused the accident.
The fact remains, however, that the evidence of all six witnesses exculpates the driver of the horse box and places the blame for the collision on the deceased. Mr. Marshall has suggested that the witnesses have not been truthful and that there has been an attempt to conceal the true nature of the accident. He has suggested that the driver of the horse box was driving at excessive speed and erratically; that the witnesses in the car travelling behind the horse-box were his friends and are protecting him; that the damage to the deceased's vehicle was not consistent with the explanation of the accident given by the witnesses; and that the skid marks left at the locus were not consistent with the evidence of the witnesses.
One of Mr. Marshall's specific allegations has been that the driver of the horse box was not trapped in his vehicle. He has also alleged that the driver was under of the influence of drink. The evidence, not only from the civilian witnesses but also from fire and ambulance personnel who attended at the scene, flatly contradicts his allegations.
The police officer who attended at the locus spoke to the driver of the horsebox and confirmed that he was trapped by the legs. Ambulance personnel who arrived at the locus at about 20.45 hours also spoke of seeing the driver trapped within his vehicle. Indeed, one of the ambulance technicians remained with the driver of the horsebox until the fire brigade managed to move the Ford Sierra from the front of the horsebox. That witness was then able to free the driver with the assistance of the fire brigade.
The allegation that the driver of the horsebox was under the influence of drink was disproved by the fact that he was subjected to a breath test that proved negative.
Mr. Marshall has made many of his allegations in the form of a complaint to the chief constable. He has alleged that officers dealing with the accident were in neglect of their duty and that they failed to carry out a full and thorough investigation into the accident. Mr. Marshall has suggested that the witnesses travelling in the Metro were known to the driver and occupants of the horsebox and

that they collectively involved themselves in a conspiracy to conceal the true facts of the accident. There is, however, no evidence of collusion between the witnesses.
Mr. Marshall has alleged that one of the firemen who attended at the locus was alleged to have told his work mates that the driver of the horsebox was to be charged with manslaughter and drunk driving. That fireman was also alleged to have said that the driver of the horsebox was not trapped in his vehicle. Inquiry revealed that the fireman identified by Mr. Marshall had not attended the scene of the accident. He denied ever having discussed the accident with any of his work mates.
Mr. Marshall has also alleged that an officer of Tayside police had told him that the driver of the horsebox had drunk five or six pints on the day of the accident. The officer was also alleged to have told Mr. Marshall that there was no written record of the breath test having been carried out. Inquiry into those allegations failed to uncover any evidence to substantiate them. The officer identified by Mr. Marshall vehemently denied having made the remarks. There is written record of the breath test procedure that was carried out as a matter of routine given the nature of the accident. The senior police officer who investigated Mr. Marshall's allegations found that all were unsubstantiated.
The statements taken by the police were submitted to the procurator fiscal at Perth. He then conducted his own independent investigation into the circumstances of the death. He precognosced a number of key witnesses to check the accuracy of the statements given to the police. The procurator fiscal confirmed that the witnesses' position was that the horse box was at all times on its own side of the road; that the driver was driving carefully; and that he reacted quickly on seeing the deceased's vehicle approach.
The evidence given by the witnesses was unequivocal. It may assist my hon. Friend if I quote from the statement given by the driver of the car travelling behind the horsebox, who said:
As I approached the bend I saw a white Ford Sierra motor car swerve across the road and into a carriageway, colliding with the oncoming horse float in front of me. I braked and managed to avoid colliding with the rear of the horse float. The white Ford Sierra appeared to have been travelling at speed. I would say excessively for the bends which it come through".
That witness concluded his statement by stating
the driver of the white Sierra motor car was most definitely to blame for the accident".
It should be emphasised that there are no witnesses who contradict that version of events.
Mr. Marshall has suggested that the skid marks observed at the locus following the accident are evidence that the horsebox was being driven on the wrong side of the road. Officers of Tayside police who attended at the scene of the accident prepared a sketch of the locus. On that sketch, they recorded the position of the vehicles on the road and the skid marks that appeared to have been made by both the deceased's vehicle and the horsebox. From the evidence available to him, the procurator fiscal was satisfied that neither the skid marks nor the final position of the vehicles on the road supported Mr. Marshall's assertion that the horsebox was being driven on the wrong side of the road.
The procurator fiscal reported the circumstances to the Crown office in January 1995. Crown counsel instructed that there should be no further proceedings. As my


hon. Friend will know from his correspondence with the Lord Advocate, the procurator fiscal thereafter had a lengthy meeting in February with Mr. and Mrs. Marshall and their solicitor. At that meeting, Mr. Marshall raised a number of matters which the procurator fiscal agreed to consider.
The procurator fiscal concluded, having completed his re-examination of the evidence, including all the additional information provided by Mr. Marshall, that no significant additional evidence had been uncovered. The fiscal then had a second meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Marshall and their solicitor in August. During those meetings, the procurator fiscal attempted to provide Mr. and Mrs. Marshall with all the information that was available to him. Mr. Marshall has seen the sketch plan of the locus and a video film made by the police. The procurator fiscal has co-operated with Mr. and Mrs. Marshall's solicitor and has provided the solicitor with a copy of the photographs taken by the police, a copy of the sketch plan and a copy of the post mortem report.
The procurator fiscal has also provided the solicitor with a full list of witnesses to enable him to precognosce those witnesses himself. Throughout, the fiscal has made it clear to Mr. and Mrs. Marshall that he is prepared to consider any new information which they or their solicitor draw to his attention. The fact remains, however, that no significant new evidence has been uncovered and, in particular, nothing that contradicts the evidence of the eye witnesses.
My hon. Friend has referred to a lengthy list of questions which Mr. Marshall has also sent to a number of Members of Parliament. I believe that there are up to 41 questions on Mr. Marshall's list, and that most take the form of an allegation that there is evidence that contradicts the police version of events. I do not wish to refer in detail to those questions, but I can say that those matters were carefully considered by the procurator fiscal. He re-examined the evidence in the case, including all the additional information provided by Mr. Marshall, but, as I have already said, concluded that no significant additional evidence had been uncovered.
The possibility of instructing an accident reconstruction expert has been discussed. As the Lord Advocate has explained to my hon. Friend, the advice to the procurator fiscal is that it would be impossible to carry out a proper accident reconstruction at this stage. An expert would base a reconstruction on his examination of the locus, including the distribution of debris, damage to vehicles and marks on the road surface. Proper accident reconstruction is very dependent on the locus having been preserved as nearly intact as possible. In this case, the skid marks are no longer visible and the debris has obviously long since disappeared, as have the vehicles. In the circumstances, the procurator fiscal does not intend to take any further action in respect of the matter.
To carry out a form of reconstruction using only the sketch plan and the photographs would be of little value. Nevertheless, those are available to Mr. and Mrs. Marshall and they are free to instruct an expert to examine that material. In that connection, I understand that Mr. Marshall claims to have obtained the opinion of two independent crash analysts who allegedly say that the sketch plan prepared by the police was

inaccurate. Mr. Marshall was asked in March of this year to provide the procurator fiscal with a copy of their report, but I understand that he has not done so. Obviously, I would say to my hon. Friend that if there is any such evidence it will be considered by the procurator fiscal, who will then decide whether any further action needs to be taken.
As I have already said, Crown counsel has instructed that no proceedings should be taken in connection with the incident. Accordingly, in the view of the Lord Advocate, a fatal accident inquiry will not be held. The Lord Advocate has reviewed the papers in the case and he is satisfied that all the circumstances of the unfortunate accident have been fully investigated. He has said, however, that the procurator fiscal will be carry any further inquiries if significant new material comes to light. For the present, the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the Crown counsel's decision not to instruct a fatal accident inquiry was appropriate.
A discretionary fatal accident inquiry will be held only when the Lord Advocate is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that an inquiry should be held into the circumstances. The Lord Advocate has had such a discretion since 1906 and it was continued by the Fatal Accident and Sudden Death Inquiries (Scotland) Act 1976, which consolidated the legislation and modernised the procedures. The Lord Advocate, in the exercise of his discretion, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when deciding whether an inquiry should be held.
In the case of a road traffic fatality, an inquiry would normally be held only if it were thought that there was a need to inquire into matters which might result in the sheriff finding that there were reasonable precautions whereby the death, or any accident resulting in death, might have been avoided. Fatal accident inquiries in road traffic cases are normally held to consider matters such as the layout of the road, the appropriateness of any speed limits at the locus or the adequacy of street lighting. In other words, a fatal accident inquiry will be held where there is a need to address issues of road safety.
In this case, what is at issue is whether the driver of the horse box or the deceased was at fault. Where it is considered that a driver of a vehicle was at fault to the extent that his driving was thought to have been careless or dangerous, the appropriate step would be for criminal proceedings to be instituted. Where criminal proceedings are not appropriate—as in this case, where the evidence indicates that it was the deceased who was at fault—and issues of road safety are not raised, a fatal accident inquiry would not be appropriate, especially when the investigation by the police and by the procurator fiscal has already clearly established the circumstances leading up to the accident.

Mr. Bill Walker: The critical point is the road layout. When one discusses this, one must realise that a large vehicle on a narrow road, with bends and dips, would trigger such an accident. I drive my daughter's horse box on that road and I am astonished by some of the comments.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I repeat what I said earlier: if Mr. Marshall genuinely has opinions from two independent crash analysts who have submitted a report, I recommend that it be forwarded to the procurator fiscal,


who can then take a strong view as to what further action, if any, is required. In relation to the layout of the road, that is the best way forward if that evidence exists—and my hon. Friend has led me to believe that it does.
Crown counsel is satisfied that the circumstances in this case are not unexplained and that they do not give rise to any serious public concern. Therefore, a fatal accident inquiry would not be appropriate. That decision can be reviewed if new evidence comes to light. In that connection, I can confirm that in March of this year Mr. Marshall's solicitor provided the procurator fiscal with copies of statements from two additional witnesses. He has promised to provide the procurator fiscal with the statement of a third witness.
Once that information has been obtained, the procurator fiscal will consider whether he needs to carry out a further investigation. The results of any such investigation will be reported to Crown counsel. I assure my hon. Friend that the Lord Advocate has confirmed that the decision not to hold a fatal accident inquiry will be reviewed in the light of the new evidence, assuming that it is found to be reliable and relevant.
I regret that Mr. Marshall has been so traumatised by the loss of his son that he is unable to accept that the circumstances of the accident have been fully and properly investigated. It is clear that Mr. Marshall has

failed to come to terms with the death of his son and that he is now obsessed with allegations that there has been a cover-up. In this connection, I understand that he was convicted at Perth sheriff court on 25 April on a charge of conducting himself in a disorderly manner by telephoning a British Telecom operator and stating to her that he intended to purchase a gun and ammunition and use it to injure various people who were involved either in the accident or in the investigation of it. Sentence in that case, which is sub judice, has been deferred to 25 May and, therefore, I cannot discuss the details of the case.
I can only hope that this debate, and the fact that Mr. Marshall's concerns have been given such a public airing, will go some way towards showing him that there is no conspiracy and that those involved in investigating this tragic accident have nothing to hide. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside for initiating the debate. I suggest that the best way forward is for the new evidence to be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal. As I promised at the outset of my remarks, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to the Lord Advocate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock.